The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes for interesting reading. It tells us that “unprecedented” human-made heat is already here. Armageddon is nigh, but we can do something about it if we’re quick.
The report outlines some interesting scenarios and options and yes, I believe we have to act.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw issued a statement telling me that “every sector of the economy, every community and almost every government agency and their minister will be needed to avert a climate crisis”. What they must do, he didn’t say.
The Forest & Bird reaction was interesting in that they want to remove fossil fuels from our energy system, bring agriculture into the ETS and eradicate browsing pests. In addition, they want the restoration of forests and wetlands, along with carbon stocks, in the sea.
Greenpeace was, if nothing else, predictable, saying the Government must act swiftly to cut emissions from New Zealand’s biggest climate polluter, agriculture. As usual it was emotive and factless.
Feds made the point that farmers were well into the emissions reduction journey. President Andrew Hoggard said that “science, innovation and unblocking regulatory bottlenecks by government is needed to hasten progress”. I agree.
The problem is that I like things to be logical and they’re not. I’m not a climate change denier. I just don’t believe we have a clue about how to handle it.
Take the budget. Shaw waxed lyrically about the initiatives in the budget that would encourage schools and businesses to mothball the old coal-fired boiler and install an electric model.
The problem is that we don’t have the storage in our lakes to support even our current electricity demand, as the cold snap last week proved. That’s despite importing 427,000 tonnes of coal for electricity generation in just the first quarter of this year.
That’s moved by ship from Indonesia to Tauranga, by road to Huntly and burned to provide the electricity for what used to be coal-fired boilers in schools and SMEs.
According to the US Energy Information Administration, every tonne of coal burned releases 1700kg of CO2 into the atmosphere, meaning we polluted to the extent of 726,000 tonnes of CO2 by burning coal for electricity in the first quarter of this year alone. On an annualised basis, that means we’re putting over three million tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere just to generate electricity.
We don’t have to, we can build more dams.
The same applies to the electric vehicles the Government is encouraging. Currently we burn coal to provide the electricity to run them.
It just seems stupid and an indictment on the politicians who expect us to believe their rhetoric.
Then we have our old friends the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) telling us in their recent report that we’ll be increasing our population by 1.8 million, albeit in 50 years.
Let’s consider that.
Currently, Kiwis are each responsible for 10 tonnes of carbon each year.
So, if we increase our population by 1.8 million people, we’re increasing our carbon footprint by 18m tonnes each and every year. That’s a large part of the country’s net emissions currently and makes farming’s contribution insignificant.
Why would you?
We don’t need another 1.8m people and I’d suggest that the carbon footprint makes it untenable, yet there is no debate on the issue. We blindly accept a massive increase in population with the resultant increase in carbon pollution while pillorying the farming industry over some short-life methane.
The farmers pay NZ’s bills. A 1.8m increase in population won’t just increase the carbon pollution, as I’ve outlined, but also consider the carbon footprint of the extra houses, schools, hospitals and motorways the country will need.
As I recently wrote, I don’t believe electric cars are the answer. They’re more ‘feel good’ than ‘do good’.
We have an EU study that showed that GMO crops reduce our carbon footprint. It proved that the crops would have reduced the EU’s GHG emissions from agriculture by 7.5%. It was equal to the total emissions of between 10 and 20 coal-fired power stations, so a major contribution.
Why aren’t we discussing GMOs as a way of reducing our environmental footprint? It’s a proven way of doing just that.
My point, as I’ve previously mentioned, is that we’re playing with the problem, we’re not fixing it. We’re offering up simple, easy, feel-good solutions.
We’re adopting a simplistic local approach when what we need is a workable, long-term solution capable of getting universal buy in.
With climate change we’re into ‘feel good’ and not ‘do good’. Doing good would be to stop importing coal, introduce GMOs and to not increase our population.
Finally, we need a credible long-term solution that the country and all political parties buy into and not soundbite based quick fixes.
